Dawkins Still Won't Defend Science
by MikeGeneThe Venerable Bede notes, "an ideology that seeks to prevent scientists from doing their work is a bad thing. If that ideology backs up its claims with violence and intimidation, it is a very bad thing. In fact, here in the UK it is the biggest threat to science. Is it creationism? Of course not. Who has ever heard of creationists engaging in arson, grave robbery and assault. Most of them wouldn't say boo to a goose. Which is odd, because if you listen to the rhetoric of Dawkins, Grayling and their ilk, you might think that creationists are a serious obstacle to science."
It is instructive to watch this growing threat emerge at Richard Dawkins' University.
According to this recent news article:
Last month the website carried a message from the ALF calling for attacks against Oxford staff and students, and telling sympathisers: "Do whatever it takes and blow these f****** monsters off the face of the earth."
Keep in mind that this is not the web site of some obscure loudmouth shouting offensive things in a crowed room "“ "Atwood's website is used as the main forum for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). It lists and glorifies successful attacks including arson, burglary and criminal damage on the workplaces and homes of scientists and associated workers."
A recent development includes:
Last week the site circulated a list of 40 named academics and their home addresses, saying that they were "legitimate targets". Describing some as "scum", it told animal rights activists they had "everything to gain by hitting these targets hard".
Bede tells us, "I'm writing this in Oxford and I can't say the atmosphere of fear is palpable. Oxford students are too laid back for that. But it is a constant subject of concern and has further increased the security here." But it also looks like a climate of fear is developing:
JCR Presidents have expressed their reluctance to pass any animal rights-related motions in their JCR meetings, fearing they may mark out their college for attacks by militant animal rights protesters. Debate has been taking place on the JCR President mailing list after threats made by members of the Animal Liberation Front suggesting students are legitimate targets for attack.
The issue was sparked by a motion proposed in Trinity's JCR meeting that suggested the JCR should condemn the actions of protesters. The motion noted, "˜This JCR respects the right of everyone to make their views heard legally and peacefully, but condemns the campaign of violence and intimidation by the Oxford animal rights protesters.
Despite the JCR Committee suggesting that the motion be amended to, "˜This JCR would urge animal rights protesters to remain peaceful,' the motion was overturned.
So the question must once again be asked "“ Where is Richard Dawkins? Violent militants have threatened his university's right to conduct scientific research and Dawkins has been unwilling to defend his University and its rights. Violent militants have threatened Dawkins' scientific colleagues: "Among the top three "targets" on the list is Colin Blakemore, head of the Medical Research Council and an Oxford scientist, who has previously received letter bombs at his home. He called for Atwood's activities to be closed down"¦"¦ "When the stakes are so high, I worry about the extent to which they will escalate their tactics. I'm now based in London, at the Medical Research Council. But at least the house is bristling with security systems because of all the trouble we've had in the past." The militants have now circulated the private addresses of Dawkins' scientific colleagues and called for violence. Yet Dawkins is unwilling to publicly defend his scientific colleagues and has offered no words of public support for people like Colin Blakemore. The militants have threatened the students of Oxford University and now we see that some are afraid to speak out against such extremism. And Dawkins won't even stand up for his own students! If he, of all people, is unwilling to speak out, who can blame these timid students?
What's happening at Oxford is setting a precedent, where extremists have drawn a line in the sand and have targeted everyone associated with a university because of plans to build a new science lab that will use animal models in its experiments. Richard Dawkins is in the unique position of having access to massive media exposure. Not to mention that he has a following among animal rights activists. Thus, his silence is an act of irresponsibility. Dawkins needs to speak out by a) standing up for the academic right to carry out scientific experiments that employ animal models and b) educate the public on the scientific importance of animal experimentation.
It's a shame Oxford doesn't have a Professor for the Public Understanding of Science who is willing to defend the practice of science.
Finally, Bede offers some possible reasons that might explain why Dawkins and his ilk refuse to defend science:
Why, then have the so-called guardians of science not used their formidable public profile and powers of polemic against the animal rights crowd? I think there are a number of related reasons. First, it probably is fear. Frankly, I would not invite these guys down on my neck by making public attacks on them (Hang on, this is a public attack. Yikes!). Second, in the case of Dawkins and Grayling, their hatred of religion far outweighs their love of science. As I have said before, they want to encourage creationism so as to use it to beat Christians with. Their rhetoric all points towards a primary concern for atheism and not evolution. Third and most disturbingly, their philosophy is a direct support for animal rights fanatics. I have no doubt Dawkins deplores their activities, although it would be nice if he actually said so from time to time. But he also using fallacious concepts like 'speciesism' to downgrade humanity and provide intellectual ballast who for those who prefer children dying of leukemia to rabbits dying in their sleep. The worst offender is Peter Singer who, whether he likes it or not, is the major philosophical influence of the animal rights movement. He has always been slow to attack their violence and occasionally appears to support it.
I agree with this analysis. However, I think fear is only a minor component. Imagine if the animal rights extremists were fundamentalist Christians, using the Bible to condemn animal experiments and justify their actions. Does anyone really think Dawkins would be silent? Or would we be reading weekly articles about this topic?
February 21st, 2006 at 10:05 am
This sounds astonishingly familiar to the Danish cartoon controversy. Intimidation and fear, and not news value or cultural sensitivity, are the main reasons some newspapers have chosen not to include the cartoons on their editions.
It's a great way to win the battle of ideas: bludgeon everyone who disagrees. But note: it didn't work in the U.S.S.R., and it's falling apart now in China.
As to Dawkins' part in it, his title of "for the Public Understanding of Science" is a sham. We all know what his real, and apparently his only, agenda is.
Comment by TomG — February 21, 2006 @ 10:05 am
February 21st, 2006 at 11:11 am
Why would Dawkins fight against the animal rights crowd? They all believe in evolution. Dawkins more or less agrees with them that people don't have the right to conduct experiments on animals, based on what I've read from him.
I do think it is worth having a debate about vivisection and the way experimental animals are treated (as well as factory farming). I spent a summer in college taking care of animals in an experimental lab and I'm not thrilled with the way we treat them.
Of course threats to researchers and burning buildings is not "dialogue" and people who do these activities are engaged in terrorism.
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 21, 2006 @ 11:11 am